[robert_in_la]

It IS true... higher resolution means that the processor has to work harder to process the information to display in those pixels. Less resolution, less strain in the processor

Several LG G3 (with 2.5k display) owners have lowered they resolution to 1080p and saw a significant improvement in battery life.

Higher resolution alone does not mean more battery consumption. Screen size, screen technology used along with resolution does. Looking at resolution alone and not at the other two factors is a narrowed focus argument.

I am not an engineer nor do I claim to be one - but several engineers I am working with at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) would tell you differently.

[Joao Oliveira]

Higher resolution alone does not mean more battery consumption. Screen size, screen technology used along with resolution does. Looking at resolution alone and not at the other two factors is a narrowed focus argument.

I am not an engineer nor do I claim to be one - but several engineers I am working with at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) would tell you differently.

Of course we assume we are comparing a screen with the same "standard" in technology, not comparing a 160x160 from 1995 to a 4k display from today.

More pixels need more computing power to render each pixels. If you buy a PC and you want to play games smooth at 4k resolution, not only you will need a powerfull CPU and GPU, you also need a powerfull Power Supply. It has been like that since computers exist, and it's not changing now.

That's why when you play a game on your phone, it drains the battery, because games need more processing power, so does more resolution. That's why LG G3 users have better battery life, when they lower their resolution (even when the screen is exacly the same)

+pixels = +processor usage = +power usage
(You don't need to be an engenner to understand the relation in those variables, any person that knows how to assemble a PC knows this)

[hplovecraft]

I wonder how much considerations concerning scaling went into the 720x720 design. As there are other devices with the same resolution, apps should not have problems to run on the classic.

For me it would be interesting to know what difficulties are connected to having same aspect ratio but different screen resolution in terms if apps/app design.

Posted via CB10

[anon8656116]

I wonder how much considerations concerning scaling went into the 720x720 design. As there are other devices with the same resolution, apps should not have problems to run on the classic.

For me it would be interesting to know what difficulties are connected to having same aspect ratio but different screen resolution in terms if apps/app design.

Although the Classic has the same resolution as the Q10, it has the same scaling factor as the Z30. UI components are thus a bit smaller on the Classic, so they are not strictly mimicking the UI of the Q10. Designing apps for different resolutions is easy since the 10.3 SDK, but I suspect older apps will either apply the same UI as the Q10 (if based on resolution) or use the default UI but with stretched or blurred images. It would depend on how the developer implemented the UI for different resolutions. The bigger problem is the tool belt, however. Unless the developer used default Cascades elements for the UI, the tool belt probably won't quite work (as good) without optimisation.

[Aljean Thein]

I think 300ppi is just good enought for smatphones. I wonder why people want crazy ppi in their phones, it's like they do professional photography work in that tiny screen...

I came from the Q10 to the passport with much higher resolution, and it doesn't make me any difference when I pick the Q10, to me it is as sharp for normal use.

I wonder the usage advantages people here would get in having 500ppi in the Classic. Is a workphone, to read texts, emails and make calls, not to brag about the specs in the bar. Lower resolution makes up for better battery life, and that's A LOT more important for the target of this phone.

300 ppi is NOT good enough for a high end phone. A nice crisp screen is really great to have - even a must have.

The Classic's screen resolution is meh. Even for a mid end phone

Posted via CB10

[robert_in_la]

Of course we assume we are comparing a screen with the same "standard" in technology, not comparing a 160x160 from 1995 to a 4k display from today.

More pixels need more computing power to render each pixels. If you buy a PC and you want to play games smooth at 4k resolution, not only you will need a powerfull CPU and GPU, you also need a powerfull Power Supply. It has been like that since computers exist, and it's not changing now.

That's why when you play a game on your phone, it drains the battery, because games need more processing power, so does more resolution. That's why LG G3 users have better battery life, when they lower their resolution (even when the screen is exacly the same)

+pixels = +processor usage = +power usage
(You don't need to be an engenner to understand the relation in those variables, any person that knows how to assemble a PC knows this)

Again my point is that it's not just about pixel density, that's all.

Posted via CB10

[Francis Dunphy]

Less than 300 ppi on any modern smartphone is a joke.
The only thing that keeps me from buying a z30 is the inferior screen compared to my current z10's 356 ppi.
So I guess a new Classic is definitely out of the question now.

Posted via CB10

[Brandon Tobias]

1) the classic a not a high end phone .... its not meant to be thats where the passport comes in and other devices not yer announced.
2)720 x 720 is a joke as most mobile CPU's can push 1080p comfortably without any significant battery impact so a 1080 x 1080 display or even a 1024 x 1024 screen would be sufficient.
3) does the screen res really mater at 3.5" cuz i think not i rather a 16.9 5" 1080p screen any day.

A blackberry is meant for work/busimess its not an Android or IOS device tha'ts meant for consumers and massive media consumption... thats not its target although i wish blackberry would strike the perfect balance between all the business stuff and the consumer/ techy stuff.

point bank is my Q10 is for typing bbm emails yada yada .... i kinda hate bow bbm on android is hey need to improve it but android is for good FB experience and social media apps .... and social communication.

Screen res is not that important imo ... the square screen is more of the issue for me ...

[Joao Oliveira]

300 ppi is NOT good enough for a high end phone. A nice crisp screen is really great to have - even a must have.

The Classic's screen resolution is meh. Even for a mid end phone

Posted via CB10

Not enough? Not enough for what? what task you have on the phone that you NEED more than 300ppi otherwise you can't accomplish?

That you LIKE more than 300ppi? all good... but that you NEED more than 300ppi? I don't believe you

I wonder how you work on a laptop or desktop, because even a 4k laptop is under 300 ppi, a 1080p can be under 150ppi... I guess those would melt your eyes

[Joao Oliveira]

To anybody that thinks 300ppi is "terrible" or a "joke", the Classic definitely isn't the phone for you. People that buy the classic would be more interested in having a rock solid phone with great battery life for business purpose.

You don't see businessman measuring their phone's d!ck size at the bar like the consumer does

[Joao Oliveira]

Iphone 6 still has 326ppi, and I think the screen looks great, and the iphone 6 is a top end phone

PS. there's A LOT more than resolution to make a good looking screen, ignorants just don't realise that

[robert_in_la]

Not enough? Not enough for what? what task you have on the phone that you NEED more than 300ppi otherwise you can't accomplish?

That you LIKE more than 300ppi? all good... but that you NEED more than 300ppi? I don't believe you

I wonder how you work on a laptop or desktop, because even a 4k laptop is under 300 ppi, a 1080p can be under 150ppi... I guess those would melt your eyes

Interesting you bring this up as you and I have commented about the overkill in resolution in other posts. Honestly it's no different then people thinking they need at 20 MP camera when they will never print a photo larger than a 5 x 7. The whole thing has gotten out of hand as most people just buy into the "more is better" hype.

Posted via CB10

[anon8656116]

Interesting you bring this up as you and I have commented about the overkill in resolution in other posts. Honestly it's no different then people thinking they need at 20 MP camera when they will never print a photo larger than a 5 x 7. The whole thing has gotten out of hand as most people just buy into the "more is better" hype.

Posted via CB10

This is not what we are talking about here though. I think most people here expect a threshold of ‘not being able to see individual pixels’, otherwise known as the ‘magic number’ of 300 PPI. The Classic is slightly under that threshold, hence why the OP questions the screen. We can’t say for sure what the result will be, that would depend on various factors, but the lower PPI factor is a negative indicator.

As to overkill of PPI, it depends. On desktops a higher PPI count makes more sense when the scaling factor can be adjusted (Windows and OS X have this, Linux must have too), but on smartphones it typically doesn’t. You can’t change the scaling factor on BlackBerry 10 or iOS (I’m assuming it’s not a standard feature of Android either), so it doesn’t really give you a benefit. What Apple calls ‘Retina’ is in fact nothing but a doubling (or now tripling) of the scaling factor, i.e. UI elements are upscaled and have pretty much the same size but sharper outlines. You don’t get more screen estate to put the extra pixels to good use.

[Viet Ton]

Ok it might be relevant that the classic "only" offers 296 ppi and the q10 is over 300 (which is a 4 ppi difference on a relatively small screen) but The only thing I know is on the hands on classic topic somewhere in crackberry (cant post the link), the screen of the classic is shown to be actually better than that of the q10.

And actually, on such small screens, I doubt anyone will notice such things. Oh and btw, I think that most of the users don't even know what ppi is (or care)

Posted via CB10

[Taigatrommel]

To all people claiming everything below 300ppi is too bad for today's standards: Why don't you just wait and try the device yourself before complaining? As already stated by myself, you can't compare ppi to ppi as there are other factors taking a part in how sharp your own eyes see your screen. The used subpixel matrix is one of the most critical factors. For example nobody complains about the 328ppi of the Q10, but they never care the effective ppi is way lower than the theoretical number, because the installed pentile-matrix has just 2/3 of the subpixels a traditional RGB-matrix uses. In the end each pixel in the precious ppi is constructed of subpixels, which is something many people tend to forget.

My guess is: No Q10 owner, who is satisfied by the current screen sharpness, won't be disappointed by the sharpness of the Classic screen. I'd even go so far and say if people wouldn't know resolution and ppi while you show them a Classic, they wouldn't! even complain about the screen.

Posted via CB10

[asiayeah]

Yes, 720 by 720 in 2015? Really Blackberry? Not to mention asking $450?(Preorder)

With that low of a resolution, I would expect the battery to increase ten-fold.

True. But on the other hand a 720x720 is a good jump from existing BBOS users. Not to mention the screen dpi is still around "retina".

Having said that Classic 2 is liking to come out with a 1440x1440.

Posted via CB10

[Bluenoser63]

Just looked up specs on the 9900/9930 Bold.

287 ppi. I'm stunned. Bold Specs - Specifications for BlackBerry Bold 9900, 9930

I don't understand how the display doesn't appear to have changed over the past few years, other than just stretching it larger?

Do you know what else pisses me off. We have had 24 bit colour for about 20 years in all our computers, tablets and phones. Where are the 32 and 64 bit colour video? I don't understand how the colours have changed to higher specs.

[Bluenoser63]

Just looked up specs on the 9900/9930 Bold.

287 ppi. I'm stunned. Bold Specs - Specifications for BlackBerry Bold 9900, 9930

I don't understand how the display doesn't appear to have changed over the past few years, other than just stretching it larger?

Apple Retina Display ? Jonesblog

A “normal” human eye is considered to have standard visual acuity or 20/20 vision. This means that a 20/20 eye can discriminate two lines or two pixels separated by 1 arcminute (1/60 degree).

The ability of an optical system to resolve fine detail requires minute spacing of optical detectors. In the retina, there detectors are the photoreceptors. Objects we look at at projected through the cornea and lens and imaged on the back of the eye on a plane that ideally lines up with the retinal photoreceptors.

Theoretically the limit of retinal resolution, say the ability to distinguish patterns of alternating black and white lines is approximately 120pixels/degree in an optimal, healthy eye with no optical abnormalities. Again, this corresponds to one minute of arc or 0.000291 radians (π/(60*180)). If one assumes that the nominal focal length of the eye is approximately 16mm, an optimal distance from the eye for viewing detail might be around 12 inches away from the eye which is reasonable to assume for someone viewing detail on their iPhone.

Dr. Soneira’s claims are based upon a retinal calculation of .5 arcminutes which to my reading of the literature is too low. According to a relatively recent, but authoritative study of photoreceptor density in the human retina (Curcio, C.A., K.R. Sloan, R.E. Kalina and A.E. Hendrickson 1990 Human photoreceptor topography. J. Comp. Neurol. 292:497-523.), peak cone density in the human averages 199,000 cones/mm2 with a range of 100,000 to 324,000. Dr. Curcio et. al. calculated 77 cycles/degree or .78 arcminutes/cycle of *retinal* resolution. However, this does not take into account the optics of the system which degrade image quality somewhat giving a commonly accepted resolution of 1 arcminute/cycle. So, if a normal human eye can discriminate two points separated by 1 arcminute/cycle at a distance of a foot, we should be able to discriminate two points 89 micrometers apart which would work out to about 287 pixels per inch. Since the iPhone 4G display is comfortably higher than that measure at 326 pixels per inch, I’d find Apple’s claims stand up to what the human eye can perceive.

Blackberry uses science and not marketing mumbo-jumbo to design the phones. You can argue if that is right or wrong, but you can't argue with science. Unless you have research studies that show the human eye can do much better.

[Joao Oliveira]

Just looked up specs on the 9900/9930 Bold.

287 ppi. I'm stunned. Bold Specs - Specifications for BlackBerry Bold 9900, 9930

I don't understand how the display doesn't appear to have changed over the past few years, other than just stretching it larger?

Whats wrong in ppi being almost the same as the 9900? What if I tell you that the 9900 has a VERY sharp screen? Oh it's sharp but the numbers aren't much higher, and you feel bad about buying a phone that doesn't have more ppi even if it has great quality

When phones reach 1000ppi, there would still be people complaining that the next phone isn't 2000ppi and that 1000p looks horrible and pixelated.

Keep looking for specs.

[Joao Oliveira]

Smartphone comuny is so dumb when it comes to technology evaluation...

This is what goes in the mind of todays uneducated smartphone enthusiast when it comes to screens

How's the screen clarity? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How accurate is color reproduction? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How dark ar the blacks? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the color shifting? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How are the viewing angles? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the brightness? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the refresh rate? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the gap between LCD and glass? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality

I don't see anybody wondering how are all these aspects of a screen that are much important than the already INSANE resolution screens that have more drawbacks that upsides

[Bluenoser63]

Smartphone comuny is so dumb when it comes to technology evaluation...

This is what goes in the mind of todays uneducated smartphone enthusiast when it comes to screens

How's the screen clarity? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How accurate is color reproduction? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How dark ar the blacks? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the color shifting? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How are the viewing angles? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the brightness? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the refresh rate? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the gap between LCD and glass? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality

I don't see anybody wondering how are all these aspects of a screen that are much important than the already INSANE resolution screens that have more drawbacks that upsides

I can see it now.
User 1 "Look at my new Classic."
User 2 "Nice screen. What is the ppi?"
User 1 "294 ppi"
User 2 "Screen sucks."

[Joao Oliveira]

I can see it now.
User 1 "Look at my new Classic."
User 2 "Nice screen. What is the ppi?"
User 1 "294 ppi"
User 2 "Screen sucks."

I wouldn't have said it better, you nailed it.

[anon8656116]

Smartphone comuny is so dumb when it comes to technology evaluation...

This is what goes in the mind of todays uneducated smartphone enthusiast when it comes to screens

How's the screen clarity? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How accurate is color reproduction? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How dark ar the blacks? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the color shifting? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How are the viewing angles? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the brightness? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the refresh rate? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality
How's the gap between LCD and glass? doesn't matter, only ppi is relevant in screen quality

I don't see anybody wondering how are all these aspects of a screen that are much important than the already INSANE resolution screens that have more drawbacks that upsides

You're creating one straw man after another.

[FrankIAm]

GUYS WHATEVER BB DOESNT HAVE ITS NOT NEEDED AND BACKED UP BY SCIENTIFIC DATA I PICKED MYSELF UNLESS THEY GET IT IN A NEW DEVICE IN WHICH CASE IT WAS ABOUT DAMN TIME AND PRAISE THEM

Amirite? It's always like that lol

While I do think it's low (I always set up the smallest of fonts and hold the phone very close to me), this isn't a premium device at all.

Q10SQN100-1/10.3.1.1151

[SunshineStateFlyer]

To be honest, I think around 75% of the potential Classic buyers don't even know what PPI is, and if they do, I doubt that they actually care.

The Classic is not a spec flagship, it's a device for classic BlackBerry users.

Of course, tech magazines often relate to ppi, processor speed and other figures like that, but this is still kind of geek talk. They do that because they need measurable and comparable units.

Yes, the Classic screen is indeed on the very low end when it comes to ppi. The question that raises here, though, is if that is going to affect sales figures. I don't think so.